Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000760

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/57453/2023
LP/08470/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 29 May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HUGHES

Between

VCH
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Swain, Counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr Lawson, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 20 May 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals with permission a decision of a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (‘The Judge’), promulgated following a hearing in Birmingham on 28 October 2024, in which the Judge refused his protection and Human Rights appeal.
2. The basis of the Appellant’s claim is recorded briefly by the Judge at [7] in the following terms:
7. The Appellant was born in 1998, he is a citizen of Vietnam. His immigration history and the basis of his claim are set out in full in the Tribunal papers. In summary the Appellant claims to have borrowed money from a bank and to have travelled to Russia for work before being moved onto the UK where he was picked up by a gang. The Appellant’s case is that he cannot return to Vietnam as he has nowhere to live and will be at risk from the gangs he owes money to and for his sur place activities.
3. The Respondent’s decision dated 15 September 2023 accepted the Appellant’s identity, but little else about his claim. Having rejected his account of trafficking, the material facts of his claim that would have created a real risk of persecution had not been established. In the alternative, any such risk could be addressed by sufficiency of protection and/or internal relocation in Vietnam. The sur place activities post-dated the decision.
4. The Judge’s findings are set out from [11] of the decision under challenge leading to it being found at [21-30]:
21. His journey to the UK and events relied on have no substance. Taking all the above into consideration I find that the Appellant’s account of events relied on in his claim for international protection are not true and I reject his claim of having been conned into making the arrangements or having been trafficked out of Vietnam or to the UK. The Appellant has relatives in Vietnam with whom he remains in contact and it appears that he has a house and work experience in the country. On the findings the question of relocation does not arise nor does the risk of re-trafficking within or outside the country.
22. That does not dispose of the Appellant's claim as he relies on his sur place activities in the UK protesting against the Vietnamese government. Having grown up in Vietnam and worked there the Appellant will have been aware of the nature of the government and how political opponents are treated and the nature of the dangers of opposition activism. Despite living under the regime the Appellant did not undertake any political activities when in Vietnam and does not have a profile from his time there.
23. The question is whether the Appellant's activities in the UK will have come to the attention of the authorities in Vietnam and will be a source of danger to him if returned. The genuineness of his actions may be relevant to the assessment of risk dependent on the view that the authorities would take of his actions. It is relevant to whether the Appellant would continue to protest against the government on return.
24. The Appellant's account is set out in paragraphs 17 to 20 of his witness statement, pages 49 and 50. Although the Appellant has been in the UK since at least July 2021 it was not until September 2022 that he joined the group Always be Yourself. I was not directed to any objective evidence about the group’s actual profile, whether it is known to the authorities in Vietnam, actually a source of concern or interest to the authorities or whether the leadership has suffered as a result of their activities.
25. Having grown up in Vietnam and worked there he would have been exposed to government corruption and intolerance while there and would been aware of the regimes attitude to opponents and activists. That experience did not compel the Appellant to take action while there and there was a delay before he started his activities in the UK even though there would be less information available here compared to the direct experiences of living in Vietnam.
26. The Appellant described himself as a supporter before he joined and that he had joined in with other groups but that there are not many photographs as he lost those he had and pictures were taken by others and he had not control over those. I accept that the Appellant has been involved in sur place activities but the evidence does not support the level of activity that the Appellant states he undertakes or previously undertook.
27. The Appellant refers to his being told by relatives that the authorities have been looking for him although there is nothing from anyone in Vietnam to explain what has actually happened. It does not appear that the Appellant's relatives have suffered.
28. The background evidence shows that the Vietnamese authorities can and do take action individuals whose political opinions and actions are not acceptable to the regime and monitoring of individuals outside Vietnam may take place. I repeat that I was not directed to evidence relating to the group that the Appellant refers to in his evidence, there is nothing to support the Appellant's claim of being at a high level in the organisation or that it is of interest to the authorities. The Appellant has no profile of any sort from his time in Vietnam.
29. On this issue I find that the Appellant's actions are not genuinely motivated by his opposition to the Vietnamese regime and on return he would not continue with his activities. I find that there is no evidence that the Appellant is known to, or of any interest to, the Vietnamese authorities and that he can return to the country without being in danger from the government or from any other source.
30. The Appellant has only been in the UK for a relatively short period of time and although he will have established a private life to some extent there is no evidence to show that it is of any strength or durability. The evidence does not show that article 8 is engaged by the Appellant's circumstances in the UK. The Appellant has not shown that there would be very significant obstacles to his reintegration or that the consequences would have unjustifiably harsh consequences. There are no circumstances that would justify a grant of leave outside the Immigration Rules.
5. In their application for permission to appeal the Judge’s decision, dated 26 November 2024, the Respondent alleges the Judge had erred in law as follows:
(i) In making a material error of fact, that the Appellant, having paid up front for his travel, had not explained why he was in debt to his traffickers;
(ii) In coming to the irrational conclusion that an adverse inference could be drawn from the Appellant protesting only in the UK, not in Vietnam prior to departure;
(iii) In failing to address a material issue, whether the Appellant’s activities in the UK would have placed him at risk on return / failing to give reasons for his conclusion that the Appellant would not be at risk on return.
6. Each of the above grounds was expanded upon at [4-15] of the application. As to grounds 2 and 3, the Appellant submitted, in short, that the Judge’s findings of fact failed to engage in any meaningful way with the extensive expert report of Professor Blut which opined directly upon these key issues, and whose expertise had not been challenged.
7. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Veloso on 12 February 2025, limited to grounds 2 and 3.
8. No Rule 24 response had been filed or served on behalf of the Respondent.
9. At the outset of the hearing before us we indicated out provisional view that there appeared to be force in grounds 2 and 3 of the appeal.
10. Mr Lawson, on behalf of the Respondent, accepted that a material error of law had been made by the Judge, for all of the reasons set out in grounds 2 and 3 in the grounds of appeal, and accordingly that the appeal was not resisted. We accept that.
11. Applying AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC), we have considered whether to retain the matter for remaking in the Upper Tribunal, in line with the general principle set out in paragraph 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement. We are satisfied that given the nature of the error of law in the First-tier Tribunal decision, it would be appropriate to remit this matter so that the Appellant has an opportunity to present his appeal on a proper footing before a First-tier Tribunal Judge.
Notice of Decision and Directions
12. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside for the reasons set out above with no findings preserved.
13. The remaking of the decision in the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal at Birmingham to be remade by any Judge other than Judge Parkes.

Leighton Hughes
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20 May 2025